Bayer's $66bn takeover bid of Monsanto called a 'marriage made in hell'
Vermont senator Bernie Sanders leads outcry over merger, saying deal is ‘a threat to all Americans’ and should be blocked by regulators

Bayer headquarters in Germany
Rupert Neate in New York
@RupertNeate
Wednesday 14 September 2016 21.19

German chemical giant Bayer’s $66bn (£50bn) deal to buy controversial US agrochemical giant Monsanto and create the world’s largest seeds and pesticides company is “a threat to all Americans” and should be blocked, Bernie Sanders said on Wednesday.

Speaking shortly after the deal was announced, the Vermont senator, who ran against Hillary Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination, said: “The attempted takeover of Monsanto by Bayer is a threat to all Americans.”

“These mergers boost the profits of huge corporations and leave Americans paying even higher prices. Not only should this merger be blocked, but the Department of Justice should reopen its investigation of Monsanto’s monopoly over the seed and chemical market.”

He called for the proposed takeover to be blocked and for a fresh investigation into Monsanto’s current control of the seed market.

The proposed deal, the biggest corporate takeover deal so far this year, follows a wave of consolidation in the seeds and agriculture industry and has raised concerns among politicians, scientists, regulators, farmers and activists who called the deal a “marriage made in hell”.

Bayer raises Monsanto cash takeover offer to $65bn
Read more
Werner Baumann, chief executive of Bayer, which is most famous for developing aspirin, said “the combination of our two great organizations [will] deliver substantial value to shareholders, our customers, employees and society at large”.

But farmers and environmentalists warned the deal could lead to a reduction in seed variety, an increase in genetically modified crops and higher seed costs and therefore crop and food prices.

The proposed takeover is likely to face intense regulatory scrutiny in the US and Europe, particularly as it quickly follows two other mega-deals in the agriculture industry and would leave control of almost two-thirds of the world’s seeds and pesticides in the hands of three firms.

Analysts at Bernstein Research said they thought there was only a 50:50 chance of the deal winning regulatory clearance. “We believe political pushback to this deal, ranging from farmer dissatisfaction with all their suppliers consolidating in the face of low farm net incomes to dissatisfaction with Monsanto leaving the United States, could provide significant delays and complications,” they said in a research note. Because of the difficulties expected in getting the deal through, Bayer has agreed to pay Monsanto $2bn if the tie-up falls apart because of competition concerns.

Friends of the Earth described the takeover, which will see Bayer pay $128 per share – a 44% premium on Monsanto’s share price before the proposed deal was first revealed in May, as a “marriage made in hell”.

Adrian Bebb, Friends of the Earth’s food and farming campaigner, said the proposed takeover “threatens to further lock in industrialised agriculture at the expense of nature, farmers and the wider public” and warned that “this mega corporation will be doing its best to force damaging pesticides and GM seeds into our countryside”.

Campaigners promised further protests, which have already been held around the world since Bayer made its first approach for Monsanto in May.

They are concerned that the deal could lead to Monsanto, which has been described as “the most evil company in the world” for its role in developing deadly herbicide Agent Orange in the 1960s and more recently its role at the forefront of genetically engineered crops, could introduce GMO seeds in Europe.

Hugh Grant, Monsanto’s Scottish chief executive, hit out at environmentalists saying their concern about GM crops “drives me a little bit nuts” and said they should be more worried about how to feed a fast-growing global population while using less water as global temperatures rise.

“You think about two billion new citizens, you think about a warming planet. You think about water. These are appropriate conversations,” he said in an interview with CNN on Wednesday. “The thing that drives me a little bit nuts. The frustrating piece is this is such a polarized debate. And I don’t think it should be because we’re going to need all these kinds of agriculture.”

John Colley, professor of international business at Warwick Business School said: “Bayer’s acquisition of ‘Frankenstein’ crop producer Monsanto could be a horror story for both Bayer and its customers: the farmers.”

“Apart from Monsanto’s shareholders, who have hit the jackpot, this looks like a lose-lose bid. Bayer have been forced into paying too much and face major integration and competition authority risks.

“The farmers will lose out as product ranges are rationalised and attempts are made to increase prices.”

Bayer’s shares were up 1.3% to €105.60 in afternoon trading in Frankfurt, and Monsanto shares were 1.1% higher at $107.20 in New York._________________--
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
http://aangirfan.blogspot.comhttp://aanirfan.blogspot.com
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."

'Monsanto (soon to be Bayer) and their minions are poisoning us. Yet another independent peer-reviewed scientific study (article linked below) has confirmed that Monsanto’s notorious weedkiller, Roundup, sprayed on most major agricultural crops and animal feed, including corn, soy, canola, sugar beets, cotton, wheat, alfalfa, and beans–contaminating the majority of the non-organic foods in U.S. grocery stores, restaurants, and school lunch cafeterias–is toxic, even at the routine parts per billion or trillion level ingested by most Americans everyday.

Roundup is everywhere, in our food, in our cotton clothing, in our urine, in our breast milk, in the rain, in our drinking water, rivers, fish, and wildlife. Following up on the declaration of a respected scientific panel of the World Health Organization in 2016 that Roundup (active ingredient glyphosate) likely causes cancer, compounded by numerous studies linking Monsanto’s top-selling herbicide to hormone disruption, birth defects, kidney damage, and other diseases, the question we should be asking today is not whether we need more proof that the Biotech Bully of St. Louis is deliberately poisoning us for profit, aided and abetted by indentured scientists, media hacks, and politicians; but rather how do we drive Monsanto’s Roundup and Roundup-tainted foods off the market?

Hint number one: don’t hold your breath for the Trump administration, Congress, or the regulatory agencies to ban or even restrict the use of Roundup and the thousands of other pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, and chemical fertilizers contaminating our food and water and destroying our soils’ ability to sequester carbon and re-stabilize our dangerously out of control climate. Trump’s new regime is filled with “business as usual” Monsanto cheerleaders, Wall Street bankers, and corporate cronies who love industrial agriculture and America’s fossil fuel suicide economy.

Hint number three: don’t rely on the fraudulently labeled “natural,” “all natural,” or “non-GMO” brands of companies such as Ben and Jerry’s, Dannon, General Mills, Kellogg’s, or Whole Foods’ 365 brand, to keep Roundup and other poisons out of your food....'

Dr Antoniou said: 'The findings of our study are very worrying as they demonstrate for the first time a causative link between an environmentally relevant level of Roundup consumption over the long-term and a serious disease.

'Our results also suggest that regulators should reconsider the safety evaluation of glyphosate-based herbicides.'

Glyphosate or Roundup is the most commonly used weedkiller on British farms and around the world. It is also sold as a weedkiller for household gardens...'

'...Supporters of GM farming, such as the former Conservative Food and Farming Secretary, Owen Paterson, have used the fact GM crops and farming techniques have been used in the USA for 20 years as proof they are safe.

The British research, which has been peer-reviewed by experts to ensure the study was properly conducted, is the first to identify a risk to human health.
Our results also suggest that regulators should reconsider the safety evaluation of glyphosate-based herbicides
Dr Michael Antoniou, of Kings College, London

Experts at King's College used cutting edge profiling methods to examine the livers of female rats fed an extremely low dose of Roundup over a two year period.

Dr Robin Mesnage, a research associate at Kings, said: 'The concentration of glyphosate that was added to the drinking water of the rats corresponds to a concentration found in tap water for human consumption.

'It is also lower than the contamination of some foodstuffs.'

The team examined the livers at a molecular level and found evidence of cell damage, serious fatty liver disease and areas of dead tissue or necrosis.

They concluded: 'The study is unique in that it is the first to show a causative link between consumption of Roundup at a real-world environmental dose and a serious disease condition.
WHAT IS NAFLD?

Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease is the term for a range of conditions caused by a build-up of fat in the liver.

It's usually seen in people who are overweight or obese.

A healthy liver should contain little or no fat. It's estimated that up to one in every three people in the UK has early stages of NAFLD where there are small amounts of fat in their liver.

Early-stage NAFLD doesn't usually cause any harm, but it can lead to serious liver damage, including cirrhosis - which can be deadly, if it gets worse.

Having high levels of fat in your liver is also associated with an increased risk of problems such as diabetes, heart attacks and strokes.

If detected and managed at an early stage, it's possible to stop NAFLD getting worse and reduce the amount of fat in your liver.

Source: NHS Choices

'These results demonstrate that long-term consumption of an ultra-low, environmentally relevant dose of Roundup at a glyphosate daily intake level of only 4 nanograms per kilogram of body weight per day, which is 75,000 times below EU and 437,500 below US permitted levels, results in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease.

'Regulators worldwide accept toxicity studies in rats as indicators of human health risks. Therefore, the results of this latest study may have serious consequences for human health.'

The fact the research has been peer reviewed and published in the journal Scientific Reports means the methods have been scrutinised and verified.

The Crop Protection Association, which speaks for Monsanto and other chemical companies, questioned the validity of the King's study.

The CPA said: 'Glyphosate is amongst the most thoroughly tested herbicides on the market, and those studies by expert regulators have consistently concluded that glyphosate does not pose a risk to public health.

'Glyphosate is a crucial tool in a farmers' armoury. To put things in perspective, glyphosate is less toxic than baking soda, table salt, the caffeine in our coffee and many other products we all use or consume regularly.'

'Crop Protection Society' my Aunt Fannie; 'Monsanto Protection Society' would be a far more truthful name for this group of Monsanto cheerleaders.

And Glyphosate is used on most wheat and barley in the UK, and shortly before harvest, which means we get it in our bread and beer...

Britain's most used pesticide is linked to a deadly liver disease
www.dailymail.co.uk
Minute quantities of glyphosate, sold under the brand name Roundup by Monsanto, caused a fatty liver disease in a feeding study using rats, researchers from Kings College London found.

'...The CPA said: 'Glyphosate is amongst the most thoroughly tested herbicides on the market, and those studies by expert regulators have consistently concluded that glyphosate does not pose a risk to public health.[/b]
'Glyphosate is a crucial tool in a farmers' armoury. To put things in perspective, glyphosate is less toxic than baking soda, table salt, the caffeine in our coffee and many other products we all use or consume regularly.'...'
is it safe to assume will you be backing up your 'opinion' by replying to the peer reviewed article in Scientific Reports, because it is hardly ethical to not do so whilst pouring scorn on the Review in quotes to the Daily Mail?'._________________'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.

'Help us fight for safe and healthy food for another 20 years - become an Anniversary Donor by giving $20 today!

Dear Supporter,

Last week, we celebrated a landmark victory for California families and public health after a state judge ruled against Monsanto’s effort to keep citizens in the dark about toxic chemicals. Now, glyphosate – the main chemical in Monsanto’s RoundUp pesticide – will be included on the official list of chemicals “known to the state of California to cause cancer.” As California is viewed as a leader in environmental and public health protection, what happens in California could pave the way for labeling harmful chemicals in our food across the nation.

Legal victories like this are why Center for Food Safety is on the frontlines in courtrooms across America litigating for consumers and farmers.

We’ve been on the frontlines of food litigation for 20 years. As we celebrate our 20th Anniversary, help us continue our vital legal work by pledging to become an Anniversary Donor now.

We’re already in court fighting the most recent approvals of other toxic chemicals, including a lawsuit we just filed this week representing farmers and conservation groups suing the Trump Administration and its EPA administrator Scott Pruitt over the EPA’s approval of Dow Chemical’s newest pesticide cocktail to be sprayed on its genetically engineered (GE) corn and soy crops.

And, just a few weeks ago, we filed a case on the Trump Administration’s very first day in office, challenging the EPA’s decision to similarly rubberstamp approval of Monsanto’s latest pesticide combination to be used on GE crops, which could lead to a 10-fold increase in the use of a toxic pesticide that threatens the health of our environment and communities......'_________________'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.

'Most opinion tribunals have had a considerable impact, and it is now accepted that they contribute to the progressive development of international law. – International Monsanto Tribunal Advisory Opinion, The Hague, April 18, 2017

On Tuesday, April 18, representatives of the Organic Consumers Association and our Regeneration International project gathered in The Hague, Netherlands, along with members of other civil society groups, scientists and journalists.

We assembled to hear the opinions of the five judges who presided over the International Monsanto Tribunal. After taking six months to review the testimony of 28 witnesses who testified during the two-day citizens’ tribunal held in The Hague last October, the judges were ready to report on their 53-page Advisory Opinion.

The upshot of the judges’ opinion? Monsanto has engaged in practices that have violated the basic human right to a healthy environment, the right to food, the right to health, and the right of scientists to freely conduct indispensable research.

The judges also called on international lawmakers to hold corporations like Monsanto accountable, to place human rights above the rights of corporations, and to “clearly assert the protection of the environment and establish the crime of ecocide.”

The completion of the Tribunal judges’ work coincides with heightened scrutiny of Monsanto, during a period when the company seeks to complete a merger with Germany-based Bayer. In addition to our organization’s recently filed lawsuit against Monsanto, the St. Louis-based chemical maker is facing more than 800 lawsuits by people who developed non-Hodgkin lymphoma after being exposed to Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide. As a result of recently-made-public court documents related to those lawsuits, pressure is mounting for Congress to investigate alleged collusion between former EPA officials and Monsanto to bury the truth about the health risks of Roundup.

The timing couldn’t have been better for the Monsanto Tribunal to announce its opinions. But is time running out for us to hold Monsanto accountable—and replace its failed, degenerative model with a food and farming system that regenerates soil, health and local economies?

Read OCA’s report on the Monsanto Tribunal

Watch the Monsanto Tribunal April 18 press conference

Summary of the Monsanto Tribunal Advisory Opinion

Monsanto Tribunal Advisory Opinion—full document

One final note—we'd like to thank all of you who helped support the Monsanto Tribunal. As always, we couldn't do the work we do, without your support. Thank you!

Katherine, on behalf of the OCA and RI teams.'_________________'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.

'..Dhara Mustard Hybrid-11 (DMH-11) was genetically engineered by Delhi University to resist spray applications of the toxic herbicide glufosinate, also known as Liberty. A close relative to glyphosate, which is used in Roundup, glufosinate is a neurotoxin linked to birth defects and numerous other health and environmental issues. Despite promises by the biotech industry that these types of herbicide tolerant (HT) crops would reduce the use of herbicide, we can now confirm without doubt that the opposite is true. In the US, HT crops increased the use of herbicides like glufosinate and glyphosate by 527 million pounds in the first 16 years, and much more since.

False Science and Biased Regulators Promote GMOs

Another promise of the GMO makers is that they will increase yields. The mustard makers rolled out that myth as well, but, in the long tradition of the biotech companies like Monsanto, the mustard developers engineered their research to hide the truth. They compared the yields of their gene-spliced plant to varieties that were 40 years old. Compared to a poorly yielding control, the GMO was superior, but as a coalition of farmer unions pointed out in their letter opposing GM mustard, “GM mustard yields are lower than many recent, popular hybrids and varieties. The testing has been rigged to have favorable results.” Even the Chief Minister of the State of Bihar cried foul, saying the “testing was deliberately misleading so as to obtain favorable results for GM mustard.”

The Chief Minister tactfully stated that “conflict of interest plagues the decision-making system.” The farmer unions went further. Their members who attended the GEAC special meetings found the members “biased, unscientific,” and lacking integrity.

The dark side of this committee was laid bare years ago after Aruna Rodriguez petitioned the Supreme Court of India claiming that the GEAC was a façade, rubber stamping approvals of GMOs on behalf of the industry. The Supreme Court asked one of the world’s prominent biologists, P.M. Bhargava, to attend the committee meetings and share his recommendations. After about a year of watching the charade from the inside, he reported that the committee members rejected out of hand all objections to GMOs, ignoring their merit or potential impact. Irrespective of their source, every single scientific fact or research paper that showed potential harm was dismissed with the declaration that it was discredited.

Bhargava exposed the unscientific nature of the government’s approval committee in letters to the Prime Minister, Health Minister, and Supreme Court. He further told them that no GMO anywhere in the world had been properly evaluated. Of the 30 areas that needed to be analyzed for risk, a mere 10% had been superficially examined by the industry’s own scientists. The GEAC responded to Bhargava’s report in their traditional way, claiming that he was discredited and had no relevant publications in DNA or RNA research. In fact, Bhargava had published more on the subject than all the members of the committee combined......'_________________'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.

'Health Dangers of GMOs; Europeans may suffer if CETA approved':
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7GsSZ4yOz0&feature=youtu.be_________________'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.

"The transcript "exemplifies as well as any other single document among the Papers the history of everyday regulatory failures and agency complicity that is the unknown story of the EPA and its enduring collusion with the chemical industry, and whose result is a systemic failure to protect the American public from chemical hazards."
'..."Not One" IBT Study Free of Errors
The Howard Johnson's meeting was called to discuss the IBT scandal and plan a way forward. No consumer groups, environmental groups or members of the public were present that day in Arlington under HoJo's cheerful orange roof when the topic of how to deal with the dead animals, the fraudulent and the corrupt data was discussed.

Near the outset of the meeting, the EPA's Fred Arnold, acting branch chief of Regulatory Analysis & Lab Audits, assured the chemical company representatives present that no chemicals would be removed from the market, even though the studies supposedly showing their safety had been proven fraudulent:

"We determined that [i]t was neither in EPA's interest or the public interest or the registrants' interest [to replace all IBT data] because a large number of studies, which were performed at IBT, were performed satisfactorily," Arnold said. (p. 6).

Yet Arnold's contention that some of the studies were "satisfactory" was contradicted multiple times in the same meeting. It was later stated, for example, that not one IBT study was free of errors (p. 16). Dr. Arthur Pallotta, consultant to the Special Pesticide Review Division in the EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs, stated that "there were few [IBT] studies that did not have discrepancies, errors and omissions" (p. 27). Elsewhere in the transcript, EPA accepted that more than 80 percent of the test results from IBT were invalid (p. 123).

But Arnold's assertion that it wasn't in anyone's interest to demand new studies had striking ramifications. It was the grounds for not removing any chemicals from the market, for reassuring the public, and for kicking the IBT mess down the road. By 1983, EPA had determined that more than 90 percent of IBT's studies submitted to them had serious, invalidating problems.....'

And Trump want's to decimate even the small amount of good the EPA does at present!
Is it any wonder illnesses that were unknown or virtually negligible years ago are now skyrocketing?_________________'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.

'A growing number of foods commonly found in kitchens across America have tested positive for glyphosate, the herbicide that is the main ingredient in the popular consumer pesticide Roundup, which is widely used in agriculture. But few brands on that list are as startling as the latest: Ben & Jerry’s, the Vermont ice cream company known for its family-friendly image and environmental advocacy.

The Organic Consumers Association announced Tuesday that it found traces of glyphosate in 10 of 11 samples of the company’s ice creams — although at levels far below the ceiling set by the Environmental Protection Agency.

Rob Michalak, global director of social mission at Ben & Jerry’s, said the company was working to ensure that all the ingredients in its supply chain come from sources that do not include genetically modified organisms, known as G.M.O.s. None of its plant-based ingredients, for instance, come from a genetically engineered crop like corn or soy, where glyphosate is used in production. The company is also trying to figure out a cost-effective way for the dairy farms that supply its milk to use non-G.M.O. feed.

“We’re working to transition away from G.M.O., as far away as we can get,” Mr. Michalak said. “But then these tests come along, and we need to better understand where the glyphosate they’re finding is coming from. Maybe it’s from something that’s not even in our supply chain, and so we’re missing it.”

Consumer groups around the country, including the Organic Consumers Association, have begun raising awareness of glyphosate in food, because some studies have linked it to a variety of diseases. The International Agency for Research on Cancer, a unit of the World Health Organization, declared in 2015 that it “probably” could cause some cancers. The agency reviewed scientific studies involving people, laboratory animals and cells to assess whether glyphosate might cause cancer.

Monsanto and other companies that make products containing glyphosate hotly dispute those studies and say there is no reason for concern. Government and other regulators tend to agree that very low levels are not harmful to humans.

Ronnie Cummins, a founder and the international director of the Organic Consumers Association, said the amount found in Ben & Jerry’s ice cream would not violate any regulations. “Not everyone agrees with the acceptable levels governments have set,” Mr. Cummins said. “And, anyway, would you want to be eating this stuff at all?”

It’s far from clear. Divergent findings over glyphosate’s impact on health have divided governments, scientists, regulators and even the World Health Organization, with its International Agency for Research on Cancer linking it to cancer and another unit of the organization insisting on its safety.

Here is what we know:

• The levels of glyphosate found in Ben & Jerry’s ice creams are, indeed, small, according to government regulators and the scientist who did the testing.

The Test Results
The amounts of glyphosate (the herbicide used in Roundup) found in a pint of each flavor of Ben & Jerry’s ice cream, in parts per billion.

Cherry Garcia
No detectable glyphosate
Vanilla
(2 samples tested)
0.05 to 0.25
Half Baked
0.05 to 0.25
Americone Dream
0.05 to 0.25
Chocolate Chip
Cookie Dough
0.05 to 0.25
Phish Food
0.42
The Tonight Dough
0.42
Peanut Butter Cup
0.57
Peanut Butter Cookie
0.91
Chocolate Fudge
Brownie
1.74
The Organic Consumers Association
Such amounts might seem negligible. John Fagan, the chief executive of the Health Research Institute Laboratories, which did the testing for the Organic Consumers Association, calculated that a 75-pound child would have to consume 145,000 eight-ounce servings a day of Ben & Jerry’s Chocolate Fudge Brownie ice cream to hit the limit set by the Environmental Protection Agency, the government body charged with setting a ceiling on the amount of glyphosate allowed in food.

An adult would have to eat 290,000 servings to hit the agency’s cutoff, Dr. Fagan said.

Even European regulatory limits for glyphosate consumption, which are almost six times lower than limits in the United States, find that a child would have to eat 25,000 servings a day and an adult 50,000 for the herbicide to pose a threat.

“Based on these government thresholds, the levels found in Ben & Jerry’s Chocolate Fudge Brownie ice cream would seem totally irrelevant,” he said.

• But recent research suggests that the glyphosate levels still might be significant. In research published this year in Scientific Reports, a journal from the publishers of Nature, rats that consumed very low doses of glyphosate each day showed early signs of fatty liver disease within three months, which worsened over time.

In that study, conducted by a group of scientists at King’s College London and led by Michael Antoniou, a molecular biologist, the rats consumed in a day an amount of glyphosate equivalent to a child’s portion of Ben & Jerry’s Chocolate Fudge Brownie ice cream, Dr. Fagan said.

Monsanto, the largest seller of products containing glyphosate, labeled the research “bad science” and the rehashing of a study done five years earlier. Some scientists criticized the more recent study for failing to disclose the age of the rats, which could affect outcomes, and for using a breed prone to tumors.

“There were a number of criticisms of that study that were absolutely not true,” said David Schubert, a professor at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies who works on neurodegenerative diseases. “But the industry does what it can to make the science very confusing to a layperson.”

Dr. Schubert pointed to a study in the journal Cell Chemical Biology that came out shortly after the one led by Dr. Antoniou, which found that when a body processes glyphosate, one of the herbicide’s byproducts interfered with the body’s ability to break down fatty acids. The accumulation of fatty acids is a signature of fatty liver disease.

• One of the consumer groups pointing at Ben & Jerry’s may have a larger motive.

The Organic Consumers Association has been working with an organization called Regeneration Vermont to persuade Ben & Jerry’s to go organic. Federal regulations governing organic agriculture prohibit the use of glyphosate.

To make its point, the association also had the Health Research Institute test four organic brands of vanilla ice cream — Alden’s, Three Twins, Julie’s and the Whole Foods Market brand 365. The lab found 0.25 to 0.5 parts per billion of glyphosate’s byproduct, aminomethylphosphonic acid, in the 365 sample, but no detectable traces of glyphosate or its byproduct in the other samples.

“If they went organic, they wouldn’t have this problem,” said Will Allen, a founder of Regeneration Vermont and an organic farmer who has met with Ben & Jerry’s executives.

Other groups testing for glyphosate have found it in Quaker Oats, Cheerios, Ritz Crackers and Stacy’s Simply Naked Pita Chips, among a range of other products. The companies behind those products have all noted that the glyphosate amounts fell well below regulatory limits.

Many of those products have few or no ingredients derived from genetically engineered crops like corn, soy and sugar beets, which are meant to withstand glyphosate. Some of those products have nonetheless tested for glyphosate registered at much higher levels than those found in Ben & Jerry’s ice creams.

Both Mr. Cummins, of the Organic Consumers Association, and Mr. Michalak, of Ben & Jerry’s, said the glyphosate found in Ben & Jerry’s probably comes from add-ins like peanut butter and cookie dough. Such products contain ingredients like wheat, oats and peanuts that are often sprayed with the herbicide to dry them out.

• Regardless, this may be only the beginning for consumer brands, which will face increasing scrutiny over glyphosate.

For the past few years, consumer and environmental groups have started testing for glyphosate in food, because, while the government routinely tests foods for a variety of pesticides, it does not regularly test for glyphosate.

In 2011, the Agriculture Department conducted a special test of 300 soybean samples for glyphosate and found the herbicide in 271 of them, according to Carey Gillam, the author of “Whitewash: The Story of a Weed Killer, Cancer, and the Corruption of Science,” a book about glyphosate that will go on sale in October.

“Regulators have turned a blind eye toward trying to figure out what levels of glyphosate are in our food supply,” Ms. Gillam said.

The Agriculture Department did not respond to a request for comment.

The Food and Drug Administration is responsible for enforcing maximum pesticide residue levels for any foods in interstate commerce, and it issues an annual report on pesticide residue found in food — with the exception of glyphosate.

Megan McSeveney, a spokeswoman for the agency, said the methods used in its annual tests cannot detect glyphosate because of its chemical makeup and how it degrades. Available methods of testing, she added, are costly and labor intensive. In 2014, after the Government Accountability Office sharply criticized the agency for failing to test for glyphosate — and also for not disclosing that fact to the public — the Food and Drug Administration said it would cost about $5 million to start such testing.

The agency, Ms. McSeveney said, is in the process of testing four food commodities: corn, soy, eggs and milk.

Some food and commodity companies have decided they can’t wait on the government. The Scoular Company, which sells grains and other commodities, has begun requiring farmers who sell the company soybeans and corn to notify it before using any defoliants, including glyphosate.

401
COMMENTS
“We are concerned about the general increase in chemical residues in foods,” said Greg Lickteig, a director at Scoular, “and some of our customers are concerned, too. That’s just the way it is. We now have the ability to know what’s in our food more than we ever have before.”

Correction: July 25, 2017
Because of an editing error, an earlier version of this article misstated the name of the lab that tested the ice cream for the Organic Consumers Association. It is Health Research Institute Laboratories, not Health Resource Institute Laboratories.

Correction: July 25, 2017
An earlier version of this article misstated the name of a journal that published a study led by Dr. Michael Antoniou. The study was published in Scientific Reports, a journal from the publishers of Nature, not in Nature.

Correction: July 26, 2017
An earlier version of this article misstated the year in which the International Agency for Research on Cancer released findings linking glyphosates to cancer. The announcement was made in 2015, not this year. In addition, the article referred incorrectly to the Food and Drug Administration’s plans to test four food commodities. The agency is in the process of testing those commodities, not planning to begin testing them.'

Quaker Oats’ 100% Natural Claim Questioned in Lawsuit MAY 1, 2016_________________'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.

May 19, 2015: Michael Dykes, who at that time was Monsanto's long-time vice president of government affairs, wrote directly to the EPA's Jim Jones, the Assistant Administrator for the Office of Chemical Safety & Pollution Prevention. Jones had oversight of the EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs and was a presidential appointee who carried significant clout. The afternoon was waning when the email came in at 3:28 p.m. Dykes reminded Jones that they had recently discussed the HHS' ATSDR glyphosate review at a meeting. "You were not aware of their review. Did you learn anything more about their efforts?" Dykes asked.

Jones did not waste time. Roughly an hour later he forwarded the message to his second in command, Office of Pesticide Programs Director Jack Housenger, writing "Monsanto thinks atsdr is doing a glyphosate Assessment. Could you guys run that down?" Housenger responds quickly: "Yes. Jess checked with them ... It has been difficult to get information."

Within an hour Jones instructed a member of his staff to get him contact information for the head person responsible for ATSDR. She replied the next morning that Dr. Patrick Breysse was the point person. Breysse joined the CDC in 2014 as director of its National Center for Environmental Health, overseeing the NCEH's ATSDR.

May 20, 2015: It was only a little after 8:30 a.m. but Jones told the staff member to instruct Housenger to get in touch with Breysse, and within two hours Housenger had penned an email to Breysse explaining that an EPA's own re-evaluation/risk assessment of glyphosate was nearing completion, and asking Breysse if "you would still feel the need to do your assessment." Housenger told Breysse that he already had reached the individual assigned to the ATSDR assessment and she had indicated she would "coordinate" with EPA, but that was not sufficient. Housenger did not mention Monsanto's outreach to EPA on the issue, but instead questioned "whether this is a good use of government resources" for ATSDR to continue with its review. Breysse responded that he would "look into this" and Housenger thanked him for his quick response. Breysse then reached out to an ATSDR division director named James Stephens to arrange a discussion about the EPA request.

May 21, 2015: James Stephens wrote back to Patrick Breysse that the ATSDR team thought the EPA work "overlaps but isn't totally duplicative…" and stated that the ASTDR team has not been able to see draft copies of the EPA's work. "I think we would all welcome further discussion with EPA but would hope to use it to help us find out more about what they are doing, " he told Breysse. After hearing from Stephens, Breysse wrote back to Housenger saying ATSDR staff would be in touch to discuss. Housenger replied with his reiteration that the ATSDR review would be a "duplicative government effort" and that the EPA draft would be out in July of 2015. (As of this writing, that EPA preliminary risk assessment still has not been released, though in 2016 the EPA did release a cancer assessment report that declared glyphosate was not likely to cause cancer.)

June 4, 2015: Pressing the issue, EPA's Housenger wrote again to Breysee to say he had not heard from anyone yet. The ATSDR's Stephens wrote back promising to make sure "someone gives you a ring." Internal Monsanto emails show that at the same time, Monsanto was also pushing the "duplicative" narrative with HHS, meeting on June 4 with HHS Deputy Assistant Secretary for Global Health Mitchel Wolfe to ask him to help repudiate the IARC classification and to recognize that a review of glyphosate was "not the primary role" for his agency. "Dr. Wolfe said he would follow up on what was going on with ATSDR and he was encouraged to have discussions with EPA staff, as well," a Monsanto memo detailing the meeting states.

June 9, 2015: Henry Abadin, an ATSDR supervisory scientist, reported to Stephens that he had talked with Housenger and explained that the agency did not believe it was "duplicating efforts." Nevertheless, he said he told EPA, "we did not have a problem with putting the glyphosate profile on hold, pending the OPP [Office of Pesticide Programs] final report."

June 19, 2015: To further ensure the ATSDR review didn't move forward, Monsanto's Dykes talked again with HHS's Wolfe, asking for an update on ATSDR. "I explained… our question was about the purpose and scope of such a duplicative review by ATSDR. I also told him that we were concerned that ATSDR may come out any day with a report. I again stressed that we were concerned that they were even reviewing glyphosate as were the people we talked with at EPA," Dykes wrote to colleagues.

June 21, 2015: It was a Sunday, but Monsanto's Dykes was still concerned enough about the ATSDR review to copy multiple colleagues on a late night email to report that he had continued to press the "duplicative" point with ATSDR but was concerned about a "glyphosate review coming any day." In a text message sent that same day, Monsanto Eric Sachs reached out to a former EPA toxicologist named Mary Manibusan asking for contacts at ATSDR. "We're trying to do everything we can to keep from having a domestic IARC occur w this group. may need your help," Sachs wrote. The text messages were among certain internal Monsanto records obtained by cancer victims who are suing Monsanto alleging Roundup caused their diseases.

June 23, 2015: By Tuesday, Monsanto's Jenkins had good news: He had heard from Housenger that the EPA official had been successful in garnering a promise from ATSDR to put its report "on hold." The review was not dead, however, he wrote: ATSDR argues "that their process is distinguishable and not duplicative. They look at different endpoints and told EPA they don't "make a call on cancer", but I think we should continue to be cautious."

On June 24, 2015: Monsanto's chief scientist William Heydens responded: "'Distinguishable and not duplicative'? Seriously? And I will believe the not 'making a call on cancer' part when I see it. Anyway, at least they know they are being watched, and hopefully that keeps them from doing anything too stupid..." Jenkins wrote back, acknowledging that Monsanto had much more to fear from ATSDR than EPA as the two agencies had arrived at "different conclusions" on other issues. He reported he had been told ATSDR was "VERY conservative and IARC like…"

By October 23, 2015: EPA and Monsanto had the ATSDR review fully on hold. EPA's Housenger wrote to update Monsanto's Jenkins: "They are waiting for our glyphosate RA. And they agreed to share what they do."

That same month, the EPA's Cancer Assessment Review Committee (CARC), which was chaired by Rowland, issued an internal report stating that contrary to IARC, the EPA's review of glyphosate found it "not likely to be carcinogenic to humans."

The EPA still has yet to issue the overall new risk assessment it said would be out in 2015. The agency has offered ever-changing timelines for the assessment, but now says it intends to release a draft risk assessment sometime this year. That will be followed by a 60-day public comment period. After the public comment period, the EPA will determine whether any risk management is needed. In the meantime, Monsanto has cited the EPA's backing of glyphosate safety as repudiation of the IARC finding both in court and with regulators in Europe who are also looking at glyphosate safety issues.

The EPA did not respond to a request for comment about its efforts to delay the ATSDR report or communications with Monsanto regarding that effort.
But Brent Wisner, a lawyer representing many of the cancer victims who are suing Monsanto, said the documents offer damning evidence of close ties between the EPA and the chemical company......'_________________'And he (the devil) said to him: To thee will I give all this power, and the glory of them; for to me they are delivered, and to whom I will, I give them'. Luke IV 5-7.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forumYou cannot attach files in this forumYou can download files in this forum